Regardless of how dramatically our opinions may diverge or how passionately we hold to convictions that our political opponents do not share, civility must be respected in the House of Commons.
– Gilbert Parent, former Canadian Speaker
Just this week, videos circulated on social media on an instance in Parliament involving a lawmaker and the Dewan Rakyat Speaker.
Datuk Johari Abdul practically delivered a ‘hairdryer treatment’ of sorts to Kuantan MP Wan Razali Wan Nor over the latter’s articulation of facts.
Wan Razali had earlier described the recent women’s rally at Sogo, Kuala Lumpur as an ‘LGBT march’.
The Speaker pushed Wan Razali several times to give a verbal confirmation on his claims and that action would be taken should the PN rep’s statements turn out to be false.
“Are you sure the march was LGBT-linked? If you are sure, say so, but was it an LGBT march or a women’s march? Just answer that, and the rest please remain quiet,” Johari said.
For the record, the rally in question was the Women’s March rally, in celebration of International Women’s Day.
It aimed to protest Malaysian women’s dissatisfaction at certain Malaysian laws that do not protect female rights, while increasing public awareness on similar issues.
Apparently, the rally itself had been deemed illegal, with the police launching an investigation, describing it as being held “without following provisions of the law”.
Wan Razali, visibly surprised by the reprimand, replied: “They (the LGBT community) were present there.”
“If yes, and if I check and it is not, action will be taken against you. Is it a yes, or no? Or are you unsure?” asked Johari again.
The Speaker continued and said: “If you are unsure, please withdraw your statement.” Wan Razali immediately retracted his statement.
To the public, they viewed this as being groundbreaking, probably because for far too long, elected representatives – in this case, MPs – are running their mouths without giving it a second thought in Parliament.
How many times did we see, hear or read about MPs hurling accusations – without or without basis to their opposite number?
It is almost as if they know that whatever they said in Parliament wouldn’t backfire on the premise of immunity for words uttered in the Dewan.
Parliamentary privilege provides lawmakers with legal immunity to discuss matters freely in Parliament.
It was meant to protect lawmakers and allow them to discharge their functions efficiently and effectively.
It is to enable the House and its members to perform their functions effectively and without interference from anyone outside of Parliament, thereby maintaining independence and authority.
But sadly, this was abused time and time again with the sole object of obtaining political milage.
Whatever is being said in the Dewan are being reported by the mainstream media – so, any accusations or allegations that are made, in the Dewan, is for public consumption, one way or another.
Whether it is by a video clip during a livestream of Parliament’s proceedings or a news report on the topic, these unscrupulous lawmakers hope to create shockwaves and cause disrepute to political opponents.
How many times do we hear this quote: “I dare you to repeat that accusation outside of the Dewan,” being said by lawmakers?
It is probably because the parliamentary privilege doesn’t apply when these accusations are made in the public sphere. There is no immunity any longer.
What I am trying to say is this – the Speaker and Deputy Speakers must continue to play their roles as gatekeepers in terms of what is being said in Parliament.
Members of parliament must not create a habit out of making silly remarks and getting away with it.
Parliamentary privilege remains a vital part in allowing checks and balances in our democratic process – that is a fact.
However, as we continue to wander along these blurred lines, someone with the right authority must be able to instil decorum in the debates of MPs.
Of course, Speakers nowadays are not only judged by their sternness of their rulings in the House but also their ability to issue leeway when the situation requires it.
It would definitely look bad for the government-appointed Speaker to continually shut down the voices of members in the opposition. There has to be a balance.
But what is crucially important is the ability to not only be impartial, but also being wise in anticipating shenanigans.
Ill-conceived remarks that are made without proper research or information of any sorts is not only unparliamentary on the part of MPs, it is not representative of their stature as elected representatives.
So, to these people, save your materials for the ceramah. The Dewan is no place for such.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
